- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mark Ingram: I can do the same things Le’Veon Bell, David Johnson do
Posted on 8/7/17 at 2:00 pm to martiallaw
Posted on 8/7/17 at 2:00 pm to martiallaw
quote:
Either one. Lets throw out his first 3 years when he was not so good. For this last 3 years he was ranked 14th, 19th, and 11th in rushing yards for those years. His average ranking for those 3 prime years would be 14.66. If I used his first 3 years and looked at him as a whole he is below average. So for his career he has been below average, if I threw away his first 3 years and just looked at him for the last 3 he has been average. If he has another productive 1,000 yard rushing year I would then say he is slightly above average RB. I don't see how this is so irrational. He is a running back that has only reached 1,000 yards once in 6 years. Has only come close one other time. If there are 32 starting Running backs, those who are ranked 14,15,16,17,18 to me are considered average running backs.
You use an individual number (yards) as your measuring stick, but ignore efficiency. You also take into consideration the start of his career to judge him harshly as opposed to using his more recent years to show what kind of player he currently is. Its the NFL, some players take time to develop.
Your argument/opinion is that a 1000 yard rusher who hits 3.9 YPC because he's a 2nd year player than a 1000 yard rusher who hits 5.1 YPC because he had a bad start to his career.
By that same argument
Here are the current top 2 WR in the league's first 3 year numbers:
2737 yards
2062 yards
By your standards, Julio and Brown aren't top 2 receivers because they both were slow and were bad. If they were so good they could have beaten old age Roddy White and one dimensional Mike Wallace.
0
Posted on 8/7/17 at 2:06 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
I'm going to make this real simple.
Name me a back that for the past 3 seasons, has had 150 carries or more each year that has amassed a better yards per carry than Mark Ingram. I haven't found one yet...
There's only one that comes close to that criteria, here are Ingram's #s:
Ingram: 4.6499 YPC (2776 rushing yards, 869 receiving yards)
Closest:
McCoy: 4.6475 YPC (3481 rushing yards, 803 receiving yards)
If you just allow at least 500 carries over 3 years:
Bell: 4.7967 YPC (3185 rushing yards, 1606 receiving yards)
If you allow last 3 full seasons still in the league:
Peterson: 5.082 YPC (4848 rushing yards, 628 receiviing yards)
--- Issue is he's 28 games the last 3 years...ahaha
Posted on 8/7/17 at 2:17 pm to htran90
quote:
There's only one that comes close to that criteria, here are Ingram's #s:
Ingram: 4.6499 YPC (2776 rushing yards, 869 receiving yards)
Closest:
McCoy: 4.6475 YPC (3481 rushing yards, 803 receiving yards)
If you just allow at least 500 carries over 3 years:
Bell: 4.7967 YPC (3185 rushing yards, 1606 receiving yards)
yep. I already knew of mccoy being technically less and bell not qualifying. Point is, you take into account consistency, dependability, and production per touch... Mark Ingram has been and is a top echelon back in the league. Obviously, i'm not parlaying INgram being No.1 in this statistic as to him being league's best back. But for me to say he's a top 8 ish back is very realistic and a worthy title for Ingram.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 2:23 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
yep. I already knew of mccoy being technically less and bell not qualifying. Point is, you take into account consistency, dependability, and production per touch... Mark Ingram has been and is a top echelon back in the league. Obviously, i'm not parlaying INgram being No.1 in this statistic as to him being league's best back. But for me to say he's a top 8 ish back is very realistic and a worthy title for Ingram.
I know you looked it up, I'm just gonna leave it there to see if he actually reads it or continue to live in est. 2011-2013
Posted on 8/7/17 at 2:53 pm to martiallaw
quote:
Either one. Lets throw out his first 3 years when he was not so good. For this last 3 years he was ranked 14th, 19th, and 11th in rushing yards for those years. His average ranking for those 3 prime years would be 14.66. If I used his first 3 years and looked at him as a whole he is below average. So for his career he has been below average, if I threw away his first 3 years and just looked at him for the last 3 he has been average. If he has another productive 1,000 yard rushing year I would then say he is slightly above average RB. I don't see how this is so irrational. He is a running back that has only reached 1,000 yards once in 6 years. Has only come close one other time. If there are 32 starting Running backs, those who are ranked 14,15,16,17,18 to me are considered average running backs.
Ok so by average you mean average Starting runningback. Which statistically puts him in the 12-18 best back in the league range
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:14 pm to Chad504boy
if he can duplicate what he did last year again this year I will agree with you. He just has to prove that he can have another productive year. To me for his NFL career I would put him in the same grouping as (McFadden, L. Blount, Lamar Miller). I do think rushing yards as a running back in the main stat that I look at, so Ingram only having 2 years where he has over 800 yards makes it hard for me to put him in the upper echelon of NFL running backs. Was last his his "outliner" peak year or the beginning of an upward trend? We will see.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:38 pm to martiallaw
quote:
if he can duplicate what he did last year again this year I will agree with you. He just has to prove that he can have another productive year. To me for his NFL career I would put him in the same grouping as (McFadden, L. Blount, Lamar Miller). I do think rushing yards as a running back in the main stat that I look at, so Ingram only having 2 years where he has over 800 yards makes it hard for me to put him in the upper echelon of NFL running backs. Was last his his "outliner" peak year or the beginning of an upward trend? We will see.
Mark Ingram isn't rushing for 1300 yards in this offense if he's splitting the ball with Adrian Peterson as well as Kamara to an extent. What we want is production per touch to be elite.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:47 pm to martiallaw
quote:
if he can duplicate what he did last year again this year I will agree with you. He just has to prove that he can have another productive year. To me for his NFL career I would put him in the same grouping as (McFadden, L. Blount, Lamar Miller). I do think rushing yards as a running back in the main stat that I look at, so Ingram only having 2 years where he has over 800 yards makes it hard for me to put him in the upper echelon of NFL running backs. Was last his his "outliner" peak year or the beginning of an upward trend? We will see.
Like I said. At this point in time, not future, you think a guy with a career 3.7ypc is better than a guy with a 4.4ypc
All because he has 200 more rushing yards over the last 2 years.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:00 pm to Chad504boy
He doesn't have to have 1300. I do think a NFL running back would need to have over 1000 rushing yards to be in the "elite" category. That is not some crazy high number I am throwing out there. With AP he should still have over 900 yards if he would be considered "elite".
This post was edited on 8/7/17 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:19 pm to htran90
I don't know who is better, for their career they are about the same (Blount, McFadden, Miller) Someone could make an agruement about either 3 being better depending on what they valued. Just based on last year which was Ingram's best year; the other RB's I would group him with are: Hyde, Blount, Crowell, Miller, Ware. Are those backs also considered elite?
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:21 pm to Glorious
quote:
Ok so by average you mean average Starting runningback. Which statistically puts him in the 12-18 best back in the league range
Yes, I could agree with that.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:22 pm to BayouTecheBengals
quote:
kid has been a bust so far in my opinion
Typical Corndog response about Ingram. Why would any Saints fan not want a Saints player wanting to say they want to be the best at their position?
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:26 pm to martiallaw
quote:
Yes, I could agree with that
Ok good because an average starting runningback is theoretically better than at least 80% of the runningbacks in the league
This post was edited on 8/7/17 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:33 pm to Glorious
why you guys continue to argue with that nimrod is beyond me.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 6:17 pm to Glorious
quote:
Ok good because an average starting runningback is theoretically better than at least 80% of the runningbacks in the league
Yes, that is what I am saying he is an average starting NFL running back. Nothing to be ashamed of. He used to be a below average NFL running back and has improved in the last year to an average starting RB. (Spencer Ware, Lamar Miller, Blount etc).
Posted on 8/7/17 at 9:11 pm to martiallaw
Pleast Stfu dumbass
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News